However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for three years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

On April 19, 2012, the Defendant received a summary order of KRW 4 million as a crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) from the District Court of Jung-gu on April 19, 2012, and received a summary order of KRW 2 million as a fine of KRW 6 million from the District Court of Jung-gu on July 6, 2017.

피고인은 2019. 7. 7. 10:21경 걍원 철원군 근남면 이하 상세 주소를 알 수 없는 곳에 있는 상호를 알 수 없는 캠핑장 앞 도로에서부터 포천시 B에 있는 C 앞 도로에 이르기까지 약 20km 구간에서 혈중알콜농도 0.044%의 술에 취한 상대로 D K3 승용차를 운전하였다.

As a result, the defendant violated the prohibition of drunk driving more than twice.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Report on the results of the control of drinking driving, the report on the situation of drinking driving, and the report on the status of drinking drivers;

1. Previous convictions indicated in the judgment: Application of three copies of criminal records, inquiry reports (former records and confirmation reports), and summary order Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Relevant provisions of the Act on Criminal facts and Articles 148-2 (1) and 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act which choose the penalty;

1. Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act;

1. The scope of punishment by law: Imprisonment with prison labor for a period from one year to two years and six months;

2. No sentencing criteria shall be set;

3. As the Defendant was punished for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) around 2012 and around 2017, the following factors are considered: (a) the interval with the previous penal records; (b) the blood alcohol content of the instant case reaches 0.044%; and (c) the time of detection of the instant case appears to have been discovered after the Defendant had drunkd on the day before the A.M.; but (d) the time of detection of the instant case was revealed to have been discovered after the Defendant had taken the water surface; (b) the Defendant was found to have been found to have been found to have been drunkd during the A.M. around 2017, taking into account other factors such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, family relationship, motive and means of the instant crime; and (c) the prosecutor’